Many churches today are explicitly constructed not to look and feel too much like a religious place. A stark contrast to the ancient cathedrals and churches of old — the very design of which was intended to help people experience the divine.
How does this design shift impact worshippers? What about outsiders? What do church buildings say about the faith of those inside? And when it comes to the next generation of believers — who leaders worry will darken the church doors less and less often — does the building itself have anything to do with their resistance or attraction to the church?
To understand the principles of design that best resonate with Millennials, Barna Group conducted a multiphase research project. Barna recruited Millennials from a variety of religious backgrounds to tour urban cathedrals, suburban megachurches, city parks and coffee shops.
‘Visually’ polled
Barna’s researchers asked what they did and didn’t like about each space, what they would use spaces for and how they might change each place if given the opportunity.
An online survey was developed for a nationally representative sample of 18- to 29-year-olds and participants in the survey also were “visually” polled — asked to respond to different sets of images. The questions focused on the design and aesthetic of church buildings and worship environments.
One series of pictures showed four different images of church windows (see graphic, above).
Windows 1 and 4 tied as most appealing, with both garnering 35 percent of participants’ votes. This is a drastic split; 1 is the most modern, least “churchy” of the images, while 4 is the most ornate and traditional. These survey results are consistent with the field group findings: Millennials like both. During the field test, participants saw a space with both styles of windows in Church of the Redeemer in downtown Atlanta. It has a small prayer chapel with an ornate stained glass image of Jesus at the front, flanked by two large, open windows.
Middle-class young adults were more likely (45 percent) than average to prefer window 1, as were Midwesterners (41 percent). This also was the case, by a wide margin, with those adhering to non-Christian faiths (61 percent). On the other side, Catholics (55 percent), residents of the West (44 percent) and Hispanics (44 percent) were all more likely than average to find window 4 most appealing.
Another series of images showed four different kinds of worship spaces (see graphic, this page) and asked which respondents found most appealing. Just under half of participants (44 percent) selected sanctuary 2, with the remaining respondents split almost evenly among the other three images. Those who profess a faith other than Christianity (32 percent) were more likely than average (20 percent) to prefer sanctuary 3; this image is devoid of Christian symbols.
Sanctuary 2 was the “Goldilocks” space for many respondents — not too big, not too small. Just right. It’s big enough to retain some anonymity as a visitor — the marginally churched (63 percent) and those who are not practicing Christians (50 percent) preferred it more strongly than the average — but small enough to feel part of a community. Parents with children under 18 (50 percent) also preferred sanctuary 2 more than average.
For many, size is a necessary evil rather than a selling point. Participants acknowledged that a successful church would grow and therefore need to increase the size of its services and facilities. But they also expressed a bit of tacit distrust for very large churches. One young man put it starkly: “It seems like a really big business.”
Another series of images showed four different altar areas with varying levels of ornamentation and iconography (see graphic, this page).
Altar areas
Altars 2 (33 percent) and 3 (37 percent) were the overall favorites. Both are unambiguously Christian and are more traditional in appearance than altar 4. Nearly half of nonmainline Protestants (48 percent) preferred altar 2, with an even stronger preference among evangelicals (55 percent). By contrast Catholics (63 percent) were more likely than average to prefer altar 3. Half of those professing a faith other than Christianity (51 percent) found altar 1 most appealing — it lacks overt Christian iconography — and 3 in 10 of those with no faith (29 percent) also chose altar 1. Both these proportions were much higher than the average (19 percent).
Barna found that Hispanic participants strongly preferred altar 3 (54 percent), while twice as many blacks (21 percent) as the national average (11 percent) found altar 4 appealing. Midwesterners were more likely to prefer altar 2 (40 percent) and Southerners more likely to choose 3 (46 percent). Married people (30 percent) and adults ages 25 to 29 (25 percent) were more likely than average to find altar 1 appealing.
These patterns illustrate most Millennials’ overall preference for a straightforward, overtly Christian style of imagery — as long as it doesn’t look too institutional or corporate.
The final series of images showed varying degrees of nature brought into or around the church space (see graphic, this page). Most Millennials preferred images with greater realism and more immersion into the outdoors. Nature 4, the garden path, was the favorite by far, with 62 percent choosing it as most appealing; a majority in nearly every population segment preferred it. Just 9 percent of all adults chose nature 1 — the more child-oriented paper cutout of a tree.
Perceptions uncovered
The research also posed a wide range of questions about Millennial perceptions of churches, church buildings and worship environments. When asked to choose between contrasting words to describe their vision of the ideal church, a majority of Millennials chose the following:
- Community, 78 percent was selected over privacy, 22 percent
- Sanctuary, 77 percent (auditorium, 23 percent)
- Classic, 67 percent (trendy, 33 percent)
- Quiet, 65 percent (loud, 35 percent)
- Casual, 64 percent (dignified, 36 percent)
- Modern, 60 percent (traditional, 40 percent)
While “sanctuary,” “classic” and “quiet” are more often associated with traditional church buildings, less than half of survey respondents preferred the word “traditional” over “modern.” And herein lies a cognitive dissonance common to the young adults interviewed in the survey. Many of them aspire to a more traditional church experience, in a beautiful building steeped in history and religious symbolism, but they are more at ease in a modern space that feels more familiar than mysterious.
“It’s tempting to oversimplify the relationship between Millennials and sacred space,” said Clint Jenkin, vice president of research at Barna and the lead designer of the study. “For instance it might be easy to believe such a place needs to look ultra modern or chic to appeal to teens and young adults. But the reality, like so much about this generation, is more complicated — refreshingly so. Most Millennials don’t look for a church facility that caters to the whims of pop culture. They want a community that calls them to deeper meaning.”
Jenkin said there are questions a community can keep in mind as it builds to include the whole church body. He suggests gathering leaders — and key members of the church body, including Millennials — to discuss questions such as the following:
- How do our facilities present visual cues? Can people easily answer the questions “Where am I?” and “What’s expected of me?”
- How do our facilities offer respite from the outside world? Can people find a place of peace that is accessible and comfortable?
- How do our facilities connect to Christian history and traditions? What symbols or design elements evoke a sense of the sacred and tell the story of God’s actions in the world?
“There are myriad ways to design sacred and communal spaces that call people of all ages to deeper relationships with God, self and others.” Jenkin said. “No two churches will (or should) incorporate them all in the same way.”
(Barna)
Share with others: